 
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 93
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 8:26 pm: |    |
Jasoncw, the last paragraph of your post is nonsense. No one is responsible for what happens to their old house when someone new moves in. The new occupant is responsible for making that home better or worse. If you sell your house to me and I trash it, or someone I sell it to trashes it, are you responsible?
(Message edited by Newport1128 on August 08, 2007) |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 415
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 9:19 pm: | |
If you were in a book club, and there was this one member who had a huge reputation for ruining borrowed books, and then you let that person borrow a bunch of your books, then yeah, it's that person's fault, but it's just as much yours for letting them borrow the books in the first place if the books get ruined.
Or if a family lived in a rough area, but had the means to live somewhere better. When the kid turns into a crack head, is it the drug dealer's fault, or is it the parent's fault for staying in the neighborhood in the first place.
But anyway, my point is that a person can't totally leave an area, and then be upset when it's not being taken care of THEIR way. If they wanted it done their way, then they shouldn't have left, or they should have left it to someone who would do it their way.
I think when someone follows the line of blaming, it leads to the people who, as a whole, just left. The home owner moving away is the action that starts the chain of events. There's plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately the original home owner is who is responsible, in my opinion anyway.
(Message edited by Jasoncw on August 08, 2007) |
Classico
Member
Username: Classico
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 9:25 pm: | |
No it is not nonsense.
You do realize that real estate agents and the such essentially lied to White residents in telling them that if they held onto their property those "Niggers" would crash the neighborhood, reduce its worth, and you'll be dead before noon. So people were duped by real estate agents looking to exploit each and every one of you. They got your property for far less than market value, then turned around and jacked up the price for Blacks. You were played......
You see, panic came across an entire white community in the city, and they capitalized your fear as their gain. It happened to my family, yours, and everyone else's. In this sense(the reality of what really happened) those who sold their houses were to blame for not being smart enough to smell a rat and then basically fall in line with the rest of the duped sheep. All because of a rather isolated riot started by black people in black neighborhoods and not just for kicks. The ones who did see through the shit were forced to go with the duped once property by property were changed over.
The truth is a hard and bitter pill to swallow for many. Many were tricked into perpetually running from this angry foaming at the mouth black mob looking to eat every young white child, when in reality realtor's and the institutions were fucking with peoples heads.
You see without having perseverance or foresight you let the downfall of the city happen at the rate it did. Who knows maybe it would have happened anyway or at a later time. Maybe the blacks moving in were really looking to eat young white children. The thing is if your going to say something as ignorant as "when will that area become a ghetto again(way to root for the home team by the way)" you better damn well know the real reasons as to why they became that way in the first place. No use in being all intellectually dishonest about it.
Now personally I don't go to the well for that too often, because as I said my family was victim to it as well. A lot of confusion was going around back then, and the best of us could have been easily duped as well(and were). So I don't really like playing that "blame" game. It's just when I read comments concerning the subject and I see the usual "they f%%%ked my old hood up", I wonder if people even "really" know what the situation was back then.
(Message edited by classico on August 08, 2007) |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3529
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 9:40 pm: | |
Superb post, Classico.
Newport, I'm quite familiar with the area. I pass through it all the time. I'm from the Mack/Rivard-Marseilles neighborhood and have commuted to downtown and/or midtown regularly along Kercheval, Mack, and Jefferson. I've gone out of my way in recent weeks and in the past, having learned about the far east side plan, to look at these blocks. The current situation is terrible. Of course I agree with you when you say it's a disaster, and that it's sad because it used to be great, and that someone or some group(s) has to be culpable for causing it. What you're basically saying is "look what these people have done to my neighborhood, my city." I'm a big history buff. You could even say I live in the past sometimes, but if there was one situation where history almost doesn't matter, it is this. The neighborhood is 75 percent destroyed; it's almost a blank slate. The former landscape, the one that you miss you much and I miss it with you, is gone. The former demographics-- white working class families-- is long gone. It's 2007. Developers with profit-motive-- a profit motive which will help all involved and the city-- will build something new [but, thankfully, something which draws on old-fashioned, traditional urban planning and home design], and both black and white people will move in, maybe some immigrants too, and middle class and working poor people, renters and homeowners. It won't be like what was there pre-1970s exactly, but it doesn't mean it's something we shouldn't have, something that isn't good for the city, and something that we should shun in favor of truck farming. If your still bitter that "those people" came in and wrecked what used to be there and thus you won't even so much as visit the D again, fine, but for those of us for whom this matters, people who live in and near the east side and who care about the overall health of the City of Detroit, this is great news, and even if those developers are big, evil, and profit-driven, I don't see how this will harm anyone. It will rebuild an urban physical landscape, create more population inflow, bring taxable investment dollars to the city, bring taxable residents to the city, and create jobs in the city. Yeah...about those farms. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 94
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 9:40 pm: | |
Jasoncw:
Again, I disagree. When you sell a house, unless you sell on land contract, you have no control over who buys your house. If they are willing to pay your asking price, or are the highest bidder if more than one party is interested, you have to sell to them. If they are getting a mortgage, it is up to the lender to determine if they are financially qualified.
I owned a house in Warren several years ago. I lived there for 7 years and made modest improvements. I sold it to a young couple. I had no idea if they would take care of the place or not; that was no longer my problem. As it turned out, they spent a lot of money and made multiple improvements. Today (at least from the outside) it's a showplace. Does that give me the right to take responsibility for what they've done?
What if the first people who bought Margaret's house kept it up, but then they sold it to someone who trashed it. Is she still responsible? You, I, nor maybe even she knows who began to let the house deteriorate.
If your "book club" scenario holds true, how should Margaret's parents have judged whether the people who bought their house were "worthy"? Since mainly blacks were moving into the neighborhood at that time, should they have "known" that blacks would not keep up their house? I think that line of reasoning goes down a road where you don't want to go.
If everyone lived by your rules, no one would ever move anywhere. We'd all be afraid that the "wrong" kind of person would destroy our beloved house and neighborhood. What happens if you have to move due to a job chane? What happens when you die? That just isn't the way life works. If you care about your house and neighbors, all you can do is hope and pray for the best when you sell, but you have no control over the future. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 95
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 10:07 pm: | |
Classico
Sounds good, let's blame the bloodsucking realtors.
The first black family moved onto my block of Newport in 1965. They did a nice job of fixing up their house; I think it's still there. Between then and 1971, when my parents moved, dozens of the other people on the block moved out. Some were elderly people who died or went into nursing homes or moved in with their kids. The kids already lived in the suburbs and had no interest in keeping up the old homeplace. They sold it to whomever would buy it, including a lot of slumlords (especially the duplexes, fourplexes and small apartment buildings which made up probably 70% of the homes on the block; not that many single family homes). Some houses were rented to no-goods who abandoned them, but not before removing all the copper plumbing and fixtures. This happened to the house just across the street from us. By 1971, things were going from worse to worst. Yes, if some of those folks back in '65 had stood their ground, or some of the younger people would have moved into mom and dad's old house instead of selling it or abandoning it, things might have gone differently, but that wasn't what happened. By '71, to use my Titanic scenario, the ship had broken in half and my folks were Leonardo and Kate hanging on to the stern rail. My folks sold to a well-to-do black lady who qualified for a regular mortgage. She was planning to rent-out the house. They were not the last whites to leave, but were far from the first. Were they responsible for what happened to our street, to their house? No way. If we coud live that time over again, I would tell them the same thing I told them in 1971: this neighborhood is no longer a safe place to live. Find one that is. They did, and I'm happy they did. If the new homeowners and residents of Newport didn't maintain the houses, that is no one's fault but their own. |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 417
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 10:46 pm: | |
But when people moved out of Detroit, 99% of the people didn't just move. They were specifically moving out of Detroit. The idea was to get off the sinking ship as fast as possible, and to get away from all of the "problems" back then. When people moved away, they were abandoning their neighborhood. So to me, it doesn't make sense that someone would then turn around and complain about how the neighborhood that they (or their parents) specifically left has fallen apart.
People left Detroit because they thought that their neighborhoods would, or were getting invaded by unsavory people. The whole point was to get away from those people. So people were leaving because they didn't like the new people who were moving into the neighborhood. If you leave, and then sell your house to one of the new people moving into the neighborhood, then logically people who you don't like are going to move into the house sooner or later.
I feel strongly about that, but I also feel strongly that if someone is living in a ghetto house, it's their own fault, and they shouldn't try to blame it on the suburbanites who left. Anyone can clean up garbage, and do basic yard and house maintenance. Poor does not mean bad.
What I'm saying is that no one should be trying to blame what happened on other people, because everyone had a big part in it, and I think people should look deeply at their own part first, instead of just looking at everyone else's. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 12
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 11:17 pm: | |
Pardon for jumping in so far into this post, but I don't get the controversy. Breathe deeply; all will be okay because according to The Freep:
"All homes include stainless steel appliances and granite countertops."
All is right with the world when the urban poor have granite counters! Hmmm...wonder what grocer will provide the goods for those shiny new appliances? The article says the development will "stimulate" business, logically we can assume it will happen, but there's no guarantee. Another "private" market like Harbortown's doesn't cut it.
Why, BTW, is the city willing to put up millions for new construction instead of encouraging rehab of the beautiful, old homes that still stand? Surely, they can be retrofit with granite. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 11:41 pm: | |
Have you been to the neighborhood? There aren't very many beautiful, old homes left. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 96
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - 11:56 pm: | |
Well, Jason, that's the way it was in Detroit in those days. My family and Margaret's family weren't the first by far to leave the sinking ship. By the time we did leave,the "unsavory" people were all around us, and our staying wasn't going to change that. It would only have meant keeping our families in a deteriorating, increasingly dangerous neighborhood. If you as an individual want to live in that kind of environment, fine. If you have a family to worry about, you have to make a decision based on what's best for them. It's not right to blame those who left, as I see other people on this forum doing. It's like blaming the survivors for making the ship sink.
My own theory is that people started leaving Detroit soon after WWII because the suburbs offered new, cheap housing. The expressways and suburban shopping centers just made it easier to leave. The e-ways also displaced a lot of black families, who then moved into the now-vacant homes in Detroit which the suburbanites had vacated. When blacks started to move in, other whites started to panic and pulled up stakes.
Maybe if we could go back in time and reverse those events, things in 1971 would have been a lot different.
You say I shouldn't be surprised by what happened. I'm not surprised. Did I think that the people moving into my old neighborhood would make it better? Frankly, no. And some will criticize that by saying, "Then you were pre-judging blacks." Maybe, but I had already seen what had happened to other Detroit neighborhoods. More to the point: was that judgment incorrect? The history of the past 35 years, as witnessed by the current state of that neighborhood, says no. Do I blame the people who moved in for the abandoned and torn-down houses and the crime? Not everyone, but those who contributed to the damage, I do.
In conclusion, as I stated previously, I do sincerely hope that the Far Eastside Project succeeds. I would like nothing better than to see my old neighborhood revitalized. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2344
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:43 am: | |
Meaghansdad, I was not talking about you as being a person not working hard and making sacrifices. Indeed, I was referring to people like you who do work hard and have made sacrifices to live here, but have had to leave Detroit because of those who don't want to work hard(the crooks who want your stuff, but don't want to work hard or make sacrifices to earn their own).
There are far too many of these kinds of people living in Detroit so I understand why people leave. There are many days when I contemplate leaving Detroit as well. My love for the city keeps me here, and there are some great people that live here. Leaving or staying in Detroit is always a tough call. I understand what you had to do, Meaghansdad. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:52 am: | |
Focusonthed,
Admittedly, I am much more familiar with the West side, and I realize that many Detroit neighborhoods are too far gone for rehab. I hope the development is a success, but I am skeptical of pocket redevelopments when I think there should instead first be a master plan for revitalizing the entire city core.
These area redevelopment plans always seem like a band-aid to me, but I appreciate that others take the "you have to start somewhere" approach. I'll admit I don't closely follow local politics; does Kwame and the Council have a vision and a plan for revitalization?
Building pre-fab "brick" structures with granite counters offered at high-end prices (at least some models) without having the infrastructure/services beyond the development cocoon just seems ludicrous to me, especially while many of our architectural treasures lie in ruin. |
Meaghansdad
Member
Username: Meaghansdad
Post Number: 49
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:55 am: | |
My apologies.
If I were single, I would undoubtedly be a resident of the city. I love Detroit. Growing up in the city, experiencing most of the heartaches and joys in Detroit makes it very hard for me not to live there. But being responsible for a family maker it impossible to remain. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3532
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:11 am: | |
Oakmangirl, I totally understand what you say. The whole prefab/faux-brick thing irks me a bit, but such is modern life. McMansions are built like crap, and they're worth several hundreds of thousands, so you can't expect developers to go all out for affordable housing. At this point, we just need to thank our lucky stars that the designs look good and the houses will look like they belong in the inner city (as opposed to what is being built in Woodbridge or other east developments like the weird stuff south of Jefferson and east of Waterworks Park.)
I'm one for high standards, but something tells me the city might lose some of these developers due to costs if they required real masonry and additional design cues that create differentiation. |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:26 am: | |
I drove through this neighborhood today and did notice that the city has upgraded the infrastructure some by placing new mains and hydrants. The next project will to run the electrical, cable and telephone underground(as told by one of the contractors on site).
I suggested to the wife that we should think about investing in one and she looked at me as if I were half crazy. Even the guys on site said that it would rival Grosse Pointe...In looks maybe..but it will still be Detroit and if we don't get the Public Schools straight and the crime under control and create good jobs for the people of Detroit, then this will just be another one of those projects that will be sighed upon ten years from now as "one of those projects that looked good at first" |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3534
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 9:06 am: | |
I think that's true because this will not be like other developments which aim at yuppies, older people, and rich families. Maybe on of the the lots should be zoned "charter school site." |
Trying_2_stay
Member
Username: Trying_2_stay
Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 9:57 am: | |
I have read lived in Detroit since my family moved here in 1963, we have lived in the same house on the same street. I have watched as Conant Gardens changed. My parents don't live there anymore but I do. My block is decent and up and coming, the surrounding area not so good. I just had my house vinyl sided and so did two of my neighbors. We are trying to keep our block looking good. A couple just bought a house down the street that was in much disarray and lost for non payment of taxes. These people put a lot of money into this house and it makes our block look good (not as good as mine though LOL). Our problem is that the only two vacant houses on the street now have squatters in them that don't care what they look like. I have stayed in Detroit even having children and instead of complaining about DPS I made it my business to find which schools were the best and put my children there. Both of my children went to Bates Academy and maintained 4.0's, it was up to me as a parent to see to it that they got a good education and not just leave it up to the school system. Tried charter schools and found that these schools were harbors for the type of students DPS won't tolerate. Have I been robbed in Detroit....YES! Have I had to deal with ignorant people who I have to clean up their garbage off of my street...YES, would I leave Detroit because of it? ........I'm Trying 2 Stay. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 97
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 10:02 am: | |
Good for you, Trying 2  |
Trying_2_stay
Member
Username: Trying_2_stay
Post Number: 11
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 10:42 am: | |
Newport, I want to ask the question that I have asked some of my friends that are white (I'm mixed, so race is not a problem). I have been in neighborhoods that were all white and then one family moves out be it because it was an elderly person or it was a starter house and they needed bigger......whatever the reason, and a black family or other race family will move in and one by one all the white families will move out if they can afford to. Now if that one black or other race family moves in and takes care of their property and doesn't make noise and doesn't let their children run wild and tear the neighborhood up, why do these families move? If they just stay where they are no more of the people that they seem to be afraid of can move in. Just a question. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 19
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 11:16 am: | |
Trying_2_Stay,
Racism is still the #1 reason, IMO, that Detroit has lost so many people. |
Trying_2_stay
Member
Username: Trying_2_stay
Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 11:27 am: | |
I guess I just don't understand or my head is just stuck in the sand......can't we all just get along is not an option so it seems. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 43
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:16 pm: | |
Trying 2 stay, Newport and I cannot answer for those white families who were ridiculously afraid of truly nice black neighbors...ok? we cannot do it. our families hung in there for a long, long time in that neighborhood...it was not until it became really dangerous that either of our families considered moving. on my block of Lakewood we had super-nice black families for many, many years. no problem there.
Oakmangirl, it's soooo easy to just sit back and play that tired old race card. come on! it's not that simple.
hey, Newport, what about the role HUD played? did you ever hear about that? I used to hear a lot about the problem of HUD getting so many of our old neighborhood's homes, and contributing to the destruction/war zone. anyone know about that?
and, re. this post from Sstashmoo:
"Quote: 'how long will it take for this 3,000-house development to turn into yet another ghetto mess?' Good question and I doubt anyone has an answer. And if so, what safeguards are in place to prevent this cycle from repeating? Margaret, for folks like you that lost your family residence to blight, it must be doubly frustrating to feel as though you were essentially ran out, probably took peanuts for the property if anything. And now there is this grandiose plan to refurbish with $300k houses. I think the truck-patch growing idea is great. It would be a wonderful accent to the vista to see some agriculture mixed in with the redevelopment. It's ecologically responsible and a good way to make use of this otherwise devoid land immediately."
a big, huge THANK YOU to both Sstashmoo and Newport! I appreciate it! yes, Sstashmoo, it was not only heartbreaking to watch my hard-working father take a staggeringly huge financial loss when he finally, finally gave up on the "sinking ship" that YES was at that point a SAFETY ISSUE for his family and not at all a RACIAL ISSUE (and NO I don't think he was "played!!")
...and then, having just about lost his shirt when FORCED to sell that beautiful house, it wound up later TORN DOWN, after having become a HUD house? .... holy wastefulness, Batman! whoduthunkit? just a totally insane situation, believe me!!!
yes, of course I too hope this project succeeds, even though like broken main I am extremely skeptical of these bandaid approaches.
a heartfelt thanks, also, Sstashmoo, for being open to the idea of some truck farms in the area...you rock!!!
and so do you, Newport!! but you already know I think that...right? |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 44
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:28 pm: | |
fyi, Mackinaw:
Market gardening
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Truck farm)
In agriculture, market gardening is the relatively small-scale production of fruits, vegetables and flowers as cash crops, frequently sold directly to consumers and restaurants. It is distinguishable from other types of farming by the diversity of crops grown on a small area of land, typically, from under one acre (4,000 m²) to a few acres, or sometimes in greenhouses. Such a farm is sometimes called a market garden or truck farm.
Market gardening as a business is based on providing a wide range and steady supply of fresh produce through the local growing season. Many different crops and varieties are grown, in contrast with large, industrialized farms, which tend to specialize in high volume production of single crops, a practice known as monoculture. Market gardening also employs more manual labor and gardening techniques, compared to large-scale mechanized farming. Because production is relatively low-volume, sales are often through local fresh produce outlets, such as on-farm stands, farmers' markets, community-supported agriculture subscriptions, restaurants and independent produce stores.
hey, Mackinaw, I wonder where YOUR food comes from? |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 234
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:32 pm: | |
Another crazy idea.
Why don't event planners and those with a true passion for the city, organize an event or ceremony if you will? The same way they have "funerals" for certain words, state and proclaim it the time to bury racism in Detroit. A lot of times it's lack of communication in intent that prevents things from taking place. Hold a city wide rally, shut down all businesses. Bring in some guest speakers with like minded intentions. This would be great press for the city and show the rest of the country and even the world that Detroit is doing something proactive for a change instead of merely complaining about it and looking down dead-end streets for options. I know many whites and I know many blacks and it is definitely time for something like this to take place.
Regardless of it's true effectiveness, the positive impact from the media coverage will be boost to the city in general form an image standpoint.
We all know there is a bad sector of white and black population, but by improving the area and relationships between races, the model citizenry united and increased in voice in strength, the feeding grounds for these types will dissipate.
Sounds a bit grandiose, but this city needs something like this bad. I have a lot of out of town friends that come in occasionally and have opportunity to drive and mingle with the locals and there is a general consensus from all. People on the whole are not very friendly here. We need to change that image.
I see the restoration of the city core like a man and woman that once divorced and are planning a remarriage. Unless the problems that caused the first divorce are irradicated, the second divorce is inevitable. As is the divorce rate on second marriages, even with other parties (minority population). |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 98
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:33 pm: | |
Trying, this is just my opinion, and I'm sure other people with also jump in with theirs.
Oakmangirl is right in SOME cases. Some people are just racists and would not live next to any black person (or hispanic, or asian or native american, or gay), no matter how fine and upstanding that minority person was or how well they took care of their property.
In other cases, I think it's because they are afraid that just having a black or other minority in the neighborhood will bring down their property value. If they were to try to sell their house or another neighbor tried to sell theirs, and a prospective buyer were to see the black neighbor, the buyer might back out.
When I lived in Grosse Pointe Woods, we had one black family move on our block of about 26 houses around 10 years ago. They were, as you mentioned, nice, quiet people who kept up their house. None of the other neighbors panicked. Sure, one or two houses went on the market every year, but no more than normal.
The problem arises when the white folks panic and start putting their houses up for sale in large numbers because no one wants to be the last white family on the block.
Even the white folks who aren't racists get scared. They see what has happened in other neighborhoods. The first one or first few black families who move in might be model citizens, but if enough houses become vacant, what my late dad used to call "the riff-raff" will eventually move in. Then comes crime and dilapidated housing. By the way, I've seen the same thing happen when white "riff-raff" move into a neighborhood. Eventually the honest and upstanding blacks will move, if financially able. I think that's why so many blacks are leaving Detroit for the suburbs. Just like the whites before them, they are afraid of the crime and violence, abandoned houses, and don't want to send their kids to lousy, crime-ridden schools.
It's too bad that, when the first black or minority family moves on a block, the other neighbors don't get together and agree to hang in there rather than run like headless chickens. I wish that kind of thing had happened back in to 50's when the "white flight" exodus began. Once it starts, though, it's almost impossible to stop. No one wants to be the last person standing on the deck of the sinking ship. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9760
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:34 pm: | |
I say that we just bulldoze the entire city and make it 139 square miles of farmland.
Why try to revive neighborhoods? Why try to bring in residents or give existing residents better options? Why try to increase the tax base or base of citizens with disposable income? Bulldoze it all. Maybe we can keep the stadiums and hockeytown to keep some people happy.
Let's work together to make all of Detroit one a 139 sq mile farm.
The fact that there is seemingly so much contempt for this plan is sad. |
Dustin89
Member
Username: Dustin89
Post Number: 102
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 12:49 pm: | |
I agree about the contempt Jt1. The key thing here is that this development is a large, positive one that could bring a nice chunk of the city back. I don't understand the opposition--just because this development is not perfect or not reflective of how the city was more than half a century ago, some forum members would prefer that the area stay in its current state? Spots of new housing development are some of the best things happening for the east side right now. I just hope it sells. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 45
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:18 pm: | |
ooh ooh Jt I know what: let's just "gentrify" the entire city and to hell with large gardens, hey what do you say? wooohooo...
while you're being so sad take a look at this:
Gentrification, or urban gentrification, is a phenomenon in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods undergo physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who may displace the prior residents.[1][2]
Proponents of gentrification focus on the benefits of urban renewal, such as renewed investment in physically deteriorating locales, improved access to lending capital for low-income mortgage seekers as their property values increase, increased rates of lending to minority and first-time home purchasers to invest in the now-appreciating area and improved physical conditions for renters.[3] Often initiated by private capital, gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased tolerance of minority sexualities[4], and renewed community activism.[citation needed]
Critics of gentrification often cite the human cost to the neighborhood's lower-class residents when debating the topic. They expound that the increases in rent often spark the dispersal of communities whose members find that housing in the area is no longer affordable.[citation needed] Additionally, the increase in property taxes may sometimes force or give incentive for homeowners to sell their homes and seek refuge in less expensive neighborhoods. While those who view gentrification as a positive phenomenon praise its effect on neighborhood's crime rates, those with different paradigms believe that the crime has not truly been reduced, but merely shifted to different lower-income neighborhoods.
so, hey, Jt, let's just shift all the %^%$ all over the city. yeah baby now THAT'S a real solution! |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2345
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
Too often in Detroit, homes are made available for rent instead of being sold out right. On the street in which I grew up and where my parents still reside, there used to be about 50 houses on the block. Now there are 13, with one vacant. Of the remaining 12, one is a rental and the rest are owner-occupied. Most of the owners have owned their homes for 25 years or more.
Growing up in that neighborhood I witnessed probably what took place in thousands of other Detroit neighborhoods. When the people were ready to move, instead of putting their houses up for sale they rented them out. Renters came in and didn't keep up the property. The owners didn't try to repair the home. It became dilapidated and eventually torn down.
I remember every house that used to be on my block, and in the majority of cases where people moved in as renters, only one rental family moved into a house before it became dilapidated and then torn down. The process was amazingly quick. The original owner would move, the renters would move in and stay a year or less, the house would be vacant but open to scrappers to take windows, doors, and aluminum siding, then often the house would be set on fire, then the house would be torn down. This whole process usually took about two 'til three years and it was done.
As a result, the street was full of vacant lots, which growing up as a kid had some advantages because we could now have areas to play football or softball without having to go to the neighborhood park.
Eventually, some of the long time owners died or got tired of keeping up their homes and moved out without anyone moving into their homes. Again, the scrappers would come in and take enough to make the house unrepairable and it would be torn down.
Currently, there is a vacant house on the block that used to be inhabited by the daughter of a family whose parents had owned the house since the early 70s. She couldn't pay the taxes on the house and was evicted. Soon after the house caught on fire and was damaged to the point of disrepair. It sits vacant and open to the elements. The family left almost two years ago. The home will probably be torn down by late fall.
Now, to keep this scenario from being played out in other Detroit neighborhoods that are still filled with people, I suggest that the city make an ordinance that says that only in certain areas can a house be rented out, everywhere else it has to be put up for sale. Far too many owners of homes want to rent their old homes to make a profit. This is a bad practice in Detroit and it needs to stop. The city should only designate certain neighborhoods where this could be done, and only for apartments or two-family flats. The only problem is can the city tell people what they can do with their property.
(Message edited by royce on August 09, 2007) |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:39 pm: | |
To bulldoze it all for farming and/or parkland would also displace all the residents. If we're displacing people regardless, how about we bring in some more? And even better if they happen to be able to pay taxes, possess disposable income, and etc.
Those screeching from afar should drive down to this neighborhood and see what it's like. Parts of the east side are truly one of the only areas in Detroit where you can say with clear conscience: "Anything is better than this". |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 408
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:42 pm: | |
Okay first off when you sell a house you no longer own it. If the neighborhood falls apart and your old house gets torn down. Get over it, you haven't lived there, you had no intention of going back, its done.
On to my second point, why the suggestions of what should be done with this land when a plan and a developer have already started working. Creative solutions are great, but why put farming where a developer has already started building.
Third, the city isn't really in charge of this, they bundled the land for a developer, thats not uncommon, and is the norm. Subdivisions in the suburbs don't get built by individual owners why would a development in the city be done that way?
Fourth, yeah the history of flight and everything is important but why can't we look forward to Detroit's "rise from the ashes" and be happy that things are changing and developers are working in the city. People that left and complain about what happened to their former homes should be the happiest about change.
I have only lived in Detroit for 1 year. I have fallen in love with the city, I think the future looks bright. If you no longer live here and aren't really connected with the city, why do you care? Shouldn't it be the residents and those who live here who have the biggest say and the most stake in what happens, not ex-Detroiters in Commerce Twp, and Oklahoma. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 46
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 1:53 pm: | |
who's from Oklahoma? certainly not me...not from the suburbs either. gee didn't know it was screeching, thought it was a free country and opinions were equal...
silly me once again I suppose.
gee gosh, why should I care? why should any ex-Detroiter care?
why does this one-year resident declare that I am not really connected with the city? why does this newcomer think he or she is qualified to make that judgement? now that's silly... |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9761
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:15 pm: | |
Margaret - Your argument is silly.
You calim it should be a farm since it is already so barren then you try to use the gentrification card. How can an area that you claim to be so desolate be gentrified?
Sounds like you are buying into the argument that Detroit should do everything they can to take care of the poorest while ignoring the needs of all residents. The role of a city is to supply services to residents, not make sure the poor are cared for.
So we will change the plan to keep silly little Margaret happy. I propose we have 100 sq miles of farmland and 39 sq miles of HUD housing for the poor.
The point that focus was making is that people like you (seemingly no longer involved in the city - my apologies if my assumption is wrong) are the first to criticize whenever anything positive is happening while making flippant comments about turning the entire area into farmland.
Margaret - Where do you live. If it is not up to my standard I propose that we bulldoze everything and turn it into farmland.
The fact that you don't grasp why you are so ridiculous in your claims speaks volumes about your attitude towards the city. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 47
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:34 pm: | |
calim? Jt, you can't even proofread, much less read posts thoroughly or think clearly. your statements are beyond silly. has anyone thought about those people who have managed to stay in that poor wreck of a neighborhood, and what will happen to them? where I live...aah, plenty of farmland, open spaces, room to breathe. no need for bulldozers here, Jt, you twit. and AS I SAID BEFORE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE POST, no need for bulldozers there either. the fact that you don't grasp how thickheaded you are speaks volumes about who you are, and who you are not. |
Oakmangirl
Member
Username: Oakmangirl
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:40 pm: | |
Margaret,
"Oakmangirl, it's soooo easy to just sit back and play that tired old race card. come on! it's not that simple."
I'm not playing any race card- to hear that is even more tiresome. I said it was the #1 reason people don't want to move in from the burbs or Oklahoma, which implies there are many other variables involved, doesn't it? |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9764
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:42 pm: | |
Margaret - Feel free to be the spelling police.
You are criticizing a plan that you know absolutely nothing about. You ask
quote:has anyone thought about those people who have managed to stay in that poor wreck of a neighborhood, and what will happen to them?
The article clearly state
quote:To assist the homeowners and renters, the development company raised $1 million from donors, including the Knight Foundation, Masco and the City of Detroit. U-SNAP-BAC will oversee restoration and will use the money to pay for repairs and façade improvements.
"We're not going in and just buying up their homes and moving them out," Smith said. "At the end of this process, it will look like a mixed-use community."
So if you would actually read the article your 'what about the current residents' non-sense could have been avoided.
The bulldozers was sarcasm about your idea to turn it into farmland. I appreciate that you live where there is a lot of farmland but it is obvious you are no longer in the city and offer up nothing for the city.
The fact that you are so set against this plan that is intended to improve the area for existing residents as well as new residents is pretty annoying.
So to recap: The article states that nobody will be forced out of their home and will in fact get assistance to improve their homes. What is your next silly argument against the plan. Maybe there is some wildlife that will get displaces. You should argue that angle. |
Thnk2mch
Member
Username: Thnk2mch
Post Number: 999
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:42 pm: | |
quote:calim? Jt, you can't even proofread
And you, Margaret, can't capitalize the first word of your sentences. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9765
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 2:44 pm: | |
Oh damn, I meant to type 'displaced' above. I hope the spelling/grammar police aren't still reading this. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 48
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 3:00 pm: | |
for the record: I am not "so set against this plan."
as I said above at least once...I wish it well,
but
I am questioning it. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3537
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 3:10 pm: | |
This is a stupid thread. That some people are ostensibly railing against this development news based on some sad memories from the past and some obsession with inner city commercial farming (whatever, I don't care about the definitions of these things, vegetable gardens in occupied backyards are great but that's it) is beyond frustrating. I'm not going to convey how good this news is to Detroit to pessimistic outsiders.
Where do I get my food, Margaret? What does it matter? Krogers, Meijers, Hillers, any good small market I can find, Eastern Market, etc. Some of it comes from Michigan, some comes from South America or various other parts of the world. I think I'd boycott vegetable grown in Detroit if they were grown on these lots currently slated for residential redevelopment. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9768
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 3:15 pm: | |
Mack - I think you have the same idea as me. We have way too many people that are more caught up in nostalgia and it clouds their abilityto recognize or support anything positive in the city.
Why is it that the biggest critics/skeptics are the same ones that left the city years and years ago? Some even seem to brag that they have not been back in 30 years.
The simple fact of the matter is that the city has many problems and needs to lure in decent, tax paying people to help. This project can do that but the nay sayers will continue to insist nothing positive in the city will ever work.
Nostalgia is wonderful but I think that nostalgia clouds any attempt at rational thought from those that used to live here and moved out 30-40 years ago. Maybe the thought of other people living in their old neighbohood turns them off.
I woudl prefer that the city and these developers attempt to do something great as opposed to throwing in the towel and become farmers.
Nostalgia does nothing for the city or the residents of the city. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 99
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 5:04 pm: | |
I'm a pretty nostalgic guy. I think of nostalgia as history wearing rose-colored classes. I got into the DetroitYES forums a few months ago principally because there were threads about schools, churches and neighborhoods that I remember when I was growing up in Detroit. Sadly, many of those places are no more, or at least have changed so drastically that they are no longer recognizable. O.k., that's how life is. "You can't go home again." I understand that, and realize we can't re-build the good old days. Some of those days weren't so good for everyone, anyway.
That being said, those nostalgic memories also represent a chapter in the history of Detroit, with all the good and bad things that went on. I feel we need to appreciate where we've been to better plan where we're going. From what I've read, the plan is not to "erase" the old eastside, but to rebuild, restore and renew it, almost like restoring a classic building. The goal is to make it even better than it was 40 or 50 years ago, yet still recognizable to those of us "old-timers" who once lived there.
We "old timers" have a purpose. We can remember what the good things were and where the pitfalls were. It doesn't matter whether we never left, or left 30 years ago. We can act as guides who can say "watch out", or "we tried that, and it didn't work". Remember: those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. History should not be a cage that restrains us; it can and should be a platform on which we can stand to have a better view of the future. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3539
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 5:33 pm: | |
^^What you said.
Sadly, I don't think this defends the other two posters.
You correctly interpret the importance of history. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 49
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 5:38 pm: | |
I totally agree with Newport. He said it all. |
Trying_2_stay
Member
Username: Trying_2_stay
Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 7:18 pm: | |
Well I wish the development well and wish there was something to be done like that in my neighborhood so that I don't end up moving. Block club tried getting people out that don't belong but the city has too much red tape and squatters have rights to other peoples property because they can't afford to get their own place the proper way. Go figure. |
Classico
Member
Username: Classico
Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 10:10 pm: | |
Christ Margaret, get a grip.
Detroit could use a little Gentrification. The truth is Detroit is a long way off from any true Gentrification. If you think whats going on with project is gentrification, you need to get out more often. You need to be displaced for that to happen. If I'm seeing this correctly, this will not be the case here. The funny thing here in Detroit is that you will not be running out of room anytime soon to be really "displaced" Lots and lots of room within the city to build new striving communities.
Anyways I wouldn't call this project a "band-aid" one. If anything, your farming one would be. People like you make me wonder. You really do. The farming argument is ridiculous for that area. Others have covered why this is so, I won't even get into that. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 1:49 am: | |
Margaret's idea of turning this area into farmland is not that farfetched of an idea as some of you make it sound. Remember, 70% of the area is vacant. My thought when I first heard of this development was, "Why bother redeveloping?" With so much empty space, why not turn the area into a huge golf course? This would be easier to build in my opinion and the revenue from golfers would quickly recoup the cost of the development.
Why turn this area into a golf course or a urban farm, you ask? Again, because the area is 70% vacant. It would seem to me that clearing out the area of its remaining residents and offering them places to live in more populated areas of city and developing the land as a golf course(the urban farm would be a more expensive proposal IMO) would redevelop the area a lot quicker than banking on people to come back to the area with this new housing development.
It just seems easier to me to build 3000 homes near areas in the city where people want to live than to build them in an area that clearly doesn't appeal to them. This Fareastside development is gambling that 3000 families over the next 10 years are going to want to live in this area just because of the incentives. A lot of other factors go into making thew decision to move there.
I think Detroit is at the point where it has to make more drastic decisions about what to do about abandoned areas and the remaining people in them. There was a thread about Youngstown Ohio a few months ago that discussed the idea that Youngstown's city government is considering mothballing mostly vacant areas of the city. They want to do this so that the city can save money on city services by condensing the areas of the city that the city has to cover.
For Detroit, mothballing this area of the far eastside or converting it into a golf course or urban farm could save the city millions of dollars on public lighting, road repair, vacant lot grass cutting, sewer services, and police, fire, and EMS services.
Hey, the development is in motion so any ideas of converting the area into a golf course, urban farm, or just mothballing the area is a moot point now. However, the city should not rule out these ideas for other areas of the city that are extremely abandoned. Sometimes you have to cut off a diseased leg to save the patient's life. It is not a popular choice, but one that needs to be made if the patient wants to live. The same rationale can be applied to a dying city. |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 101
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 9:58 am: | |
Hey guys, don't be so hard on Margaret. It's just an idea, OK? Ideas never killed anyone.
Royce, do you know what the area around Jefferson, Newport and Eastlawn used to be? "Arthur J. Scully's Rifle Range". Yep, I remember it said that on the title to my parents' home on Newport. So a golf course wouldn't be so different, except maybe a little safer (depending on who's hitting the ball).
Just kidding, guys.
Lighten up |
6nois
Member
Username: 6nois
Post Number: 411
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 1:52 pm: | |
This area is vacant, but it does offer benefits. It has close proximity to the GP's and is a short drive to downtown. There are plenty of incentives for people to move to this neighborhood besides the ones offered by the developer. In the end I think this type of developement will be much more common in the city in the future, so get over it. You don't live here anymore its not your city. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 55
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 4:34 pm: | |
aaaah, Royce and Newport, refreshing voices of reason amongst the din...thank you both! |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3541
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 5:48 pm: | |
Nice that a combined 14,000 posts between Jt1 and I, all motivated by the fact that we care about the city, only amounts to din. |
Margaret
Member
Username: Margaret
Post Number: 56
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 7:17 pm: | |
Mackinaw, this is just another knee jerk reaction from you. I was referring to this: "You don't live here anymore its not your city" and this: "People like you make me wonder. You really do."
but then again, hey, if the shoe fits... |
Classico
Member
Username: Classico
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 7:34 pm: | |
....and I'll keep repeating it until I'm blue in the face.
You don't think I know about urban farming or how it could work? I think some of you took that Metro Times article a few years back a little to heart. Your right maybe it could work elsewhere, but not THERE. There is much more potential with the current plans than your alternative. People who are smarter and wiser than you when it comes to developing that area have already concluded this.
You have pretty much confirmed that you are completely detached from developments such as this within the city of Detroit, and maybe even the Metro Detroit area.
But continue on with your bad self-righteous self. You go girl.
(Message edited by classico on August 10, 2007) |
Newport1128
Member
Username: Newport1128
Post Number: 102
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 7:43 pm: | |
People, people...
First, I agree with 6nois that the Far Eastside Project is probably just what the area needs.
That being said, let's all remember that this is just a forum for ideas and opinions. Everyone's are welcome (or at least allowed), even the "silly" and "flippant" ones. Even in an otherwise rejectable idea, there might be one shred of useful information.
Edison tried something like 1000 different substances before he found one that made his lightbulb work. When asked if if he didn't think he had wasted a lot of time, he replied "Not at all. I found 999 things that didn't work."
Plus, I don't think that Kwame and the other movers and shakers of the Far Eastside Project are going to come here looking for suggestions.
Just r-e-l-aaaa-xxx. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.